[NBLUG/talk] "Stealth'ing" *NIX into a MS-Win shop...?

[Chris Palmer]

S. Saunders writes:

> Looking for a pointer, if anyone knows where to point me...  <ahem>
> No, not there.  Been there, done that, still trying to wash the stench
> out.

Wash in tomato juice, then bury the clothes. :)

> Working in a MS-centric shop (W2K); some of their problems, it seems
> to me, can profitably be addressed by a dose (or two) of *NIX...
> Among other problems currently seen

This seems to trail off. What are some actual problems you are having?

> I know that various MS-Win services *can* be set up to run under Linux
> (& other *NIX'es); what I'd like is resources on that -- the smoothest
> way(s) to bring in (e.g.) Linux to act in lieu of a problematic MS
> server.

It depends on the problems, the applications, user expectations, and so
on. Please tell us more.

Also, why do you have to "sneak" Unix/Linux in? It sounds like you are
the main techie there, so why does anyone care?

Now, I can understand the "It must be standard and it must be manageable
by 'accidental' techies and/or non-techies" point of view -- they don't
want to get locked in, always having to have a Unix geek on-hand.

You should to at least consider the possibility that Windows (or Mac OS
X!) may be their best option. Also consider the amount of work it might
take to make a Linux setup that acheives the properties of "standard"
and "manageable by semi-techies". (For starters, it might mean Red Hat
Enterprise Linux using only Red Hat-supplied RPMs, no third-party RPMs
or source builds!)

> Does anyone know of a nicely integrated package of "all (or most)
> MS-centric products," and/or good GUI config- tools for such products?

I don't know how good Samba's integration with Windows' authentication
server is -- last time I tried it (two years ago! maybe things have
changed), winbindd required significant hand-holding. But the actual
file service of Samba works fine and I recommend it where applicable.

Do you have a Windows domain?

> It's not that I'm so desperate to evangelize Linux (or any *NIX, for
> that matter) so much as (1) I know *NIX tends to run much more stably
> & I'm in an info-centric firm:  having reliable servers will be a Good
> Thing in-house;

I really wouldn't categorically say that Unix/Linux is necessarily more
stable. Stability is measurable and quantifiable, but there are so many
factors that impinge -- administrator skill foremost.

What I think you're saying is that Unix/Linux run more stably *for you*,
because you understand them better than you do Windows. Entirely
reasonable (and the same is true for me). But make sure it's the right
thing first.


-- 
https://www.eff.org/about/staff/#chris_palmer

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://nblug.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20051214/b672496e/attachment.pgp